I agree--but do you think this is a viewpoint of the privileged? I rarely encounter someone outside of the upper middle or upper classes who views education in this way. (Do I need to zip up my flameproof suit here?)
This is the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make. I do value learning but most people don't have that luxury and for that reason, their degree needs to be useful.
BUT a degree from an elite school is likely to get you places, regardless of major. I know plenty of history majors making lots of money in investment banking. So I think the idea that these degrees are somehow "useless" is misinformed.
This is exactly the misconception. Art History was a very popular major at my school, which is mentioned in the article. Those Art History majors went on to medical school, or investment banks, or consulting firms. No one cared what we majored in, as long as we had the right GPA. Top companies recruited on campus, or at events limited only to students at Ivies and certain liberal arts schools. In many cases, the name of the school is far more important than major.
In my experience, GPA usually trumps major for grad school. A 4.0 Psych major is going to get into medical school over a 2.0 Bio major. If both have the same GPA, the Bio major probably has an advantage, if course. There's something to be said for majoring in what you love and doing well.
I don't have a link to back this up but when I was starting undergrad, art history majors had the highest med school acceptance rates in the country. I think having a major other than biology, etc does help set you apart when you're applying.
That said, I do agree people with a science degree do have a leg up than those who just took the med school pre-reqs. For example, one of my friends with a biology degree said her first med school biochemistry class was relatively easy for her because she'd had 3 previous courses where some students from other backgrounds were struggling a little more. Not saying it makes it impossible, just harder.
This is the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make. I do value learning but most people don't have that luxury and for that reason, their degree needs to be useful.
BUT a degree from an elite school is likely to get you places, regardless of major. I know plenty of history majors making lots of money in investment banking. So I think the idea that these degrees are somehow "useless" is misinformed.
I agree with you and have seen the same thing among my friends (one of my BFFs from college was an art history major who had an investment banking job upon graduation and I can think of dozens of similar examples). But it remains true that being at an elite school in the first place is a luxury most people don't have and that kids from privileged backgrounds are more likely to end up at elite colleges than kids from working or middle class backgrounds.
Actually, to relate this to our other discussion, I suspect that the pursuit of liberal arts education just for the sake of learning is one of the intangible characteristics that defines the upper class.
This is exactly the misconception. Art History was a very popular major at my school, which is mentioned in the article. Those Art History majors went on to medical school, or investment banks, or consulting firms. No one cared what we majored in, as long as we had the right GPA. Top companies recruited on campus, or at events limited only to students at Ivies and certain liberal arts schools. In many cases, the name of the school is far more important than major.
In my experience, GPA usually trumps major for grad school. A 4.0 Psych major is going to get into medical school over a 2.0 Bio major. If both have the same GPA, the Bio major probably has an advantage, if course. There's something to be said for majoring in what you love and doing well.
I don't have a link to back this up but when I was starting undergrad, art history majors had the highest med school acceptance rates in the country.
My colleague in Classics says the same thing about his field. :-P it may or may not be an urban legend, but I do appreciate the sentiment. The humanities are important, and I really hate seeing them marginalized by society at large and even colleges themselves.
I agree--but do you think this is a viewpoint of the privileged? I rarely encounter someone outside of the upper middle or upper classes who views education in this way. (Do I need to zip up my flameproof suit here?)
This is the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make. I do value learning but most people don't have that luxury and for that reason, their degree needs to be useful.
I think your underlying point is true, but the word "useful" is loaded. I guarantee that my school has a higher employment than most other schools. Many companies recruit from specific schools, so whether your degree is Economics or underwater basket weaving, simply having a degree from an elite school opens doors that students at other schools wouldn't even be aware of. Add to that the alumni network, and these schools definitely are quite useful.
I will add that I don't think that attending a liberal arts school for the purpose of learning is solely a privilege reserved for the upper class. I do think it is something that very few people have access to, but as a decidedly lower class student, I found this class of school to be more accessible to me financially. I got amazing financial aid from my top liberal arts choices that allowed me to attend for very little money. My state schools couldn't even come close. Families making under $100k now attend my alma mater for free. It takes a LOT of money to make that happen, and it's just not something that most schools in the US can offer. I had minimal student loan debt that allowed me to do things that are often not available to low income students such as study abroad, work only 8 hours a week, take unpaid internships, and go on to grad school. I studied what I wanted and had no plan...not facing crushing student loans gave me freedom to pursue my passions and eventually enter the upper class.
This is the point I was unsuccessfully trying to make. I do value learning but most people don't have that luxury and for that reason, their degree needs to be useful.
I think your underlying point is true, but the word "useful" is loaded. I guarantee that my school has a higher employment than most other schools. Many companies recruit from specific schools, so whether your degree is Economics or underwater basket weaving, simply having a degree from an elite school opens doors that students at other schools wouldn't even be aware of. Add to that the alumni network, and these schools definitely are quite useful.
I will add that I don't think that attending a liberal arts school for the purpose of learning is solely a privilege reserved for the upper class. I do think it is something that very few people have access to, but as a decidedly lower class student, I found this class of school to be more accessible to me financially. I got amazing financial aid from my top liberal arts choices that allowed me to attend for very little money. My state schools couldn't even come close. Families making under $100k now attend my alma mater for free. It takes a LOT of money to make that happen, and it's just not something that most schools in the US can offer. I had minimal student loan debt that allowed me to do things that are often not available to low income students such as study abroad, work only 8 hours a week, take unpaid internships, and go on to grad school. I studied what I wanted and had no plan...not facing crushing student loans gave me freedom to pursue my passions and eventually enter the upper class.
So true. My brother was a poor international student and got the most financial aid from Williams. He was even given money to go home annually. It was a very impressive package. He had one or two unpaid internships that his school actually paid him for and did a semester abroad. He still majored in math and Econ because of his conditioning but really didn't need to. The only loans he has now are from bschool.
Am I the only one who is surprised that Amherst isn't in the Top 25?
Also, some of these aren't pure liberal arts schools -- Lafayette and Bucknell have a lot of engineering majors, for example.
and the data are self reporting (ask anyone from a tier II or lower law school about the employment statistics in the admissions material!), etc. etc.
Let me see if I can find that graph that shows that some private liberal arts schools even have negative ROI if you are paying full sticker price once you consider opportunity costs...
Am I the only one who is surprised that Amherst isn't in the Top 25?
Also, some of these aren't pure liberal arts schools -- Lafayette and Bucknell have a lot of engineering majors, for example.
and the data are self reporting (ask anyone from a tier II or lower law school about the employment statistics in the admissions material!), etc. etc.
Let me see if I can find that graph that shows that some private liberal arts schools even have negative ROI if you are paying full sticker price once you consider opportunity costs...
There are a whole lot more LACs than R1s, so it stands to reason that there are lots of LACs out there that aren't worth their price tag. I still maintain that a degree (in anything!) from a top 25 LAC is worthwhile. I would, however, have trouble spending $$$ to send M to Random College.
ETA: Just because someone with a degree from a LAC chooses a less lucrative career path like teaching or social work doesn't mean that the degree was a waste of money. My college's mission is to prepare students for lives of leadership and service. Such fields don't always come with high salaries!